Ruh Roh: Herman Cain Backtracking on his Islamic Comments

Not sure how to digest this one. In March, a Huffington Post reporter confronted Herman Cain about the likelihood of Cain appointing a Muslim as a Judge or Cabinet member if elected president. Cain's response - which is the kind of response that has helped his stock rise with conservatives who understand the Islamic threat - was pointed and relatively clear. He explained why he would be uncomfortable with making such appointments and he focused on Sharia Law.

Here is that exchange:



Yesterday, Cain appeared on Glenn Beck's radio show and backtracked a bit. Intentional or not, Beck made it more difficult for Cain not to backtrack by feeding into the paradigm that allows Muslims to be portrayed as victims of racism. That paradigm puts conservatives on defense, it's ill-advised, and it's not relevant or correct. The issue is NOT the violation of Muslim rights. Jews are far more victimized. The issue is Sharia Law. Cain and Beck attempt to separate the two and it simply cannot be done. When the conversation is allowed to morph from a critique of Islamic Law to violations of Muslims' civil rights based on religion, it's a no-win. That's not the issue; the issue is Islamic Law.

Show me a Muslim who does NOT support Sharia Law and I'll show you either a bad Muslim or a non-Muslim. I think Cain hurt himself a bit here. He did leave enough wiggle room in his answer back in March but his answer to Beck seemed to rely on that wiggle room instead of further condemning Sharia Law as 100% antithetical to Constitutional Law. Again, compare the First Amendment with Article VI.

Fast forward to the 10:00 mark.



h/t The Blaze